Nearly 30 years after separating from his wife because of her infidelity, Dennis North, a wealthy builder, has been forced to pay out an extra Â£202,000 because his divorcee had 'fallen on hard times'.

This despite the fact that Mr North set her up with a home and a comfortable settlement at the time, and that his divorcee, now 61, hasn't worked since she was 32. The payout was ordered by a regional judge last year and is currently being reviewed in the Court of Appeal.

It's not depressing in an obvious, tear-jerking sense Mr North hasn't been driven to rags and ruin by his avaricious ex-spouse; on the contrary, he has an estimated personal fortune of between Â£5 million and Â£11 million.

But it is depressing that the crux of this case rests onÂ an assumption that is so inherently sexist: that women are feeble creatures incapable of looking after themselves, that they must rely on their husbands for their 'needs', whatever that might mean – food, shelter, clothing, trips to the hairdresser of designated frequency.

In the days of super-earning female executives and multi-millionaire authors, it seems like a pretty tired anachronism. And one that is no less insulting, and sexist, than the old dogmas that it is a woman's lot to look after home and children, for no reward or recognition – that this sort of case is presumably meant to subvert.

Still more depressing is the fact that head line-grabbing cases, whether of Mr North or Heather Mills stir up not only entirely legitimate resentment, but also entirely unsavoury, knee-jerk misogyny of the 'gold-diggers! Out for what they can get! Never trust 'em!' stripe.

Which all runs the risk ofÂ sidelining genuine gender issues, such as the fact that, according to Office of National Statistics figures published in 2004, 40 per cent of divorced women over 65 were poor enough to qualify for income support from the state, compared with 23 per cent of divorced men of the same age. (The ONS was unable to provide more recent figures today.)

Of course women who sacrifice their careers to look after their husband and/or children should be properly protected by the courts. So, too, should men in the same situation.

But authority figures such as the original North case judge are not helping the feminist cause; they are shooting it in the foot.